Any Updates on Head and Neck Restraints from SCCA?

[gsbaker]

Was there a Fastrack breif on a potential date that a H & N restraint per the SIF spec is a shall ? Which Fastrack ?
[/b]

Dave,

There is no "shall", yet. I believe it was in March that the Fastrack reported that the CRB requested the BOD mandate SFI 38.1 effective sometime this November. They'll vote thumbs down, thumbs up, something in between or just pass.

I expect some members of the safety committee will push for the mandate, especially if they are HANS dealers.

[Jeremy Billiel]

We all can agree that there is no "perfect" system. Buy any of them that will save your life is important. When looking at purchasing and device I tend to lean towards the Isaac, but I also don't want to make an investment and be screwed next year, etc...

[x-ring]

So then an even more accurate statement would be "couldn't get out without help because of his SFI certified HANS".

[gsbaker]

So then an even more accurate statement would be "couldn't get out without help because of his SFI certified HANS".
[/b]

Agreed.

With respect to the window size, I believe Joey was referring to the fact that the window opening was made smaller by the beefed up structure, which did an impressive job. As you can see from the second image here, it was nearly untouched.

[JamesB]

I think his inablity to get out was not just the HANS getting caught in the net. It was a culmination of issues. The window opening was smaller I dont know by the force of the crash or just the cage design, but if your not used to getting out of an opening smaller then when your usual entrance and exit of the car then who knows if the HANS was more then an issue beyond getting caught in the net.

Right now as the 07 season rules (my season ends before that rule takes effect.) I am limited to 3 choices, and sadly noone locally sells two of the brands so I been in a holding pattern. I might just have to take a road trip one day to a place that does carry the other brands. I am a try before you buy kind of person, and the GCR limits my choices for next year.

[Daryl DeArman]

I'll bite...WHO has a vote in this deal that also is a HANS dealer? Talk about a conflict of interest. I hope they abstain the actual vote, even though it is quite likely they will have influence on others who do get to vote.


HANS egress issues: yeah don't blame the device...stick your head in the sand and say he didn't get stuck or he'd still be in there. He didn't get out on his own!!! What if the coroner extracted him? Would you still say he wasn't stuck because he's not still in there, his progress was only slowed? Guess I have never got my Jeep stuck in the mud either...
Or blame the window net. That's it, ban all window nets and make the HANS mandatory.

[gsbaker]

I'll bite...WHO has a vote in this deal that also is a HANS dealer? Talk about a conflict of interest. I hope they abstain the actual vote, even though it is quite likely they will have influence on others who do get to vote.
[/b]

We haven't confirmed anything, so I won't name names. And it's the Board that will be voting, assuming they take up the issue, not the safety committee. The subject party is not on the Board.

[CDS]

Slight thread drift here. What is the status of the right-side net requirement? Is it still just a recommendation also?

[gsbaker]

Slight thread drift here. What is the status of the right-side net requirement? Is it still just a recommendation also?
[/b]

I believe it is a recommendation only.

That also needs to be thought through. The SAE conference in 2004 was very positive with respect to test results of nets, but all the testing had been performed with high end "containment" seats that provide excellent lateral support of the upper body. To my knowledge, there has been no testing of nets with the typical road racing seat, i.e. one having less lateral support. My personal concern is that the net may hold the head while the torso takes off, resulting in an injury in the other direction. That said, the conventional wisdom is that you're probably better off with a net than without. There may be an update on this subject at this year's SAE.

If we keep going down this path, the only way you'll can get decent lateral support of the head with an SFI device is to drop another grand (at least) on a serious seat upgrade. Members are just gonna love that.

[JoshS]

Slight thread drift here. What is the status of the right-side net requirement? Is it still just a recommendation also?
[/b]

The latest information would be what has been published in the July Fastrack. Effective 11/1/06, they will be recommending a right side net. Quoting:

Item 3. In order to clarify the intent of item 13 from the March Fastrack the CRB is recommending the following language. Effective 11/1/06:
Add new section 39 to section 17 as follows:

39. INSIDE NET (Commonly referred to as a Right Side Net)
A inside net running between the main roll hoop and the dash is recommended for all production-based cars and two-seater sports racers (see
figure 5). It is recommended that the lower strand of the net pass the shoulder and run horizontally from the cage to the dash. The upper
strand should pass the Cg of the helmet in the side view. The net should run parallel to the center of the car in plan view and be as close to the
seat as possible. It is recommended that the net be tensioned tightly and have a way to quickly disconnect it in case the driver needs to exit
through the car in an emergency. Metal collars, or some other equivalent method, should be used to keep the strands of the net from moving
from where they are positioned on the roll cage. If possible, the recommended mounting method is to wrap the net strands around the back of
the seat and attach them to the main hoop upright. However, teams should consult the net manufacturer to verify their recommended method of
mounting.
[/b]

[turboICE]

My next seat is definitely going to have significantly more lateral support - but I don't think it does any favors dropping a $3000 bill all at once on members.

I believe properly installed the RH net will work quite well. I am sure there is more stretch in them than in a harness and that it should capture the shoulder and the head not just the head.

[Peter Olivola]

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread...8054#post108054

[Bill Miller]

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread...8054#post108054
[/b]

And what exactly are you trying to point out w/ this Peter? Do Hans devices save lives? Yes they do. I don't think anyone is disputing that fact.

[Peter Olivola]

Just a reminder, Bill, amidst all the conspiracy accusations, that the HANS does indeed save lives. You have a problem with that?

And what exactly are you trying to point out w/ this Peter? Do Hans devices save lives? Yes they do. I don't think anyone is disputing that fact.
[/b]

[Bill Miller]

Just a reminder, Bill, amidst all the conspiracy accusations, that the HANS does indeed save lives. You have a problem with that?
[/b]

Like I said Peter, I don't think that anyone is disputing that a HANS saves lives. Is it the best product out there? I don't have the answer to that question, but some have raised some significant design issues (lack of lateral support, device slipping out from under the belts).

The gist of the 'conspiracy theory' has little (or nothing) to do w/ the way the HANS functions. It centers mostly around the SFI requirement of a single point of release. Something also that has nothing to do w/ the way the HANS functions (it's interesting that Roy talks about the quick releaseses on the HANS, and then talks about someone forgetting to pull the release pins on the ISSAC).

For people to not be able to use a H&N device that's been proven to work, because it doesn't meet a standard that has requiremtnts that don't relate to performance of the device, certainly makes one wonder why the standard was written that way, or why it was adopted.

[Dave Burchfield]

I have read this thread with interest for a number of days contemplating whether to comment or not. The manufacturer ofthe restraint is, in this instance not a material issue. Any quality restraint, if worn properly would have probably performed the same function.

By the way, everyone who placed a gloved hand on the car, please raise your hand(raises hand). The issue here that scares me most is the possibility of fire, and Joey Hand is SO fortunate that there was no fire. I would also have to say that PTG has much to be proud about in the quality of race cars that they build. When the team was salvaging the car, the doors looked like they could be bolted up to another car and look almost as good as new. The integrity of the driving compartment was near amazing.

As a driver and worker, I am thankful for all the safety equipment that is in use today, and use all that I can get.

All of the discussion has caused me to reflect on a conversation that I had with Dr. Melvin at the Delphi Lab during a test of a H&N system not being discussed here. I was then and am today still convinced that the SFI issue is not something that is in the best interest of the driver.

Of course, these thoughts are only my opinion...........

[turboICE]

Any quality restraint, if worn properly would have probably performed the same function.[/b]

I agree 100%, the HANS likely contributed significantly to his being able to even have an interview - but so would other quality products.

The issue here that scares me most is the possibility of fire, and Joey Hand is SO fortunate that there was no fire.[/b]

Which worries me as a driver that may not be allowed to choose a quality H&N restraint that I believe would allow ME to achieve full egress with more success.

I would also have to say that PTG has much to be proud about in the quality of race cars that they build. When the team was salvaging the car, the doors looked like they could be bolted up to another car and look almost as good as new. The integrity of the driving compartment was near amazing.[/b]

Amazing and interesting as elsewhere there was comment that there was a reduction in the window opening that was a contributing factor.

By the way, everyone who placed a gloved hand on the car, please raise your hand(raises hand). ... As a driver and worker, I am thankful for all the safety equipment that is in use today, and use all that I can get. [/b]

Ditto and as a driver I am equally thankful for people like you out there ensuring we have a fighting chance after an incident.

All of the discussion has caused me to reflect on a conversation that I had with Dr. Melvin at the Delphi Lab during a test of a H&N system not being discussed here. I was then and am today still convinced that the SFI issue is not something that is in the best interest of the driver.

Of course, these thoughts are only my opinion...........[/b]

Would you describe Dr. Melvin as being supportive of a change in 38.1 or to remain in its current state? Several (who much as myself have never met him) claim that 38.1 has his unqualified blessing.

Thanks for the post, huge contribution.

[Dave Burchfield]

It would be my opinion that the window opening was reduced by the cage structure that was rather substantial. To the best of my memory, the panels around the cage, including the roof panel were not deformed to the point that would hinder escape.

Regarding the good doctor, I will just say that being offered by a respected official, I was first somewhat offended by the flip manner of comments and later concerned. I have contemplated the manner in which the comments were offered and have personal opinions, which probably should be kept that way; personal.

This whole issue has forgotten the intended purpose, and that is the safety of the driver. Since it has become a competetion, the safety of the driver has become secondary, which is unfortunate.

[RSTPerformance]

It would be my opinion that the window opening was reduced by the cage structure that was rather substantial. To the best of my memory, the panels around the cage, including the roof panel were not deformed to the point that would hinder escape.
[/b]

Not that it is of any importance or not... Take a look at the crash video's again, if possible on a HD TV so that you can really see the detail of the car. The Windshield was never even damaged and the roof never once touched the ground till the last very very soft roll where the car finally stoped. I would be amaizingly suprised if the cage had any sort of deformity considering:

A: Very well built car
B: The "roof" never took a hit


I am not sure I understand what is wrong with all you people and all the complaining and/or argueing so much about Hans vs. Isaac. They are both great products from what I am aware of. We have witnessed on TVor in real life plenty of reasons why they both have saved lives. If you are a Hans or Isaac wearer then support the overall cause for safety, not the product. One might be safer than the other but that is personal preference. We can all admit that both are safer than nothing.

Work on a bigger cause:

a: Make Head & Neck restraints affordable for the average or lower end club racer.
b: Help the process determine the best "restrictions" on what products actually do function to a specefic level (SFI or other). - Maybe their should be an a test that requires an exit to be made in X number of seconds.

Raymond "work together already " Blethen

[RSTPerformance]

Like I said Peter, I don't think that anyone is disputing that a HANS saves lives. Is it the best product out there? I don't have the answer to that question, but some have raised some significant design issues (lack of lateral support, device slipping out from under the belts).

The gist of the 'conspiracy theory' has little (or nothing) to do w/ the way the HANS functions. It centers mostly around the SFI requirement of a single point of release. Something also that has nothing to do w/ the way the HANS functions (it's interesting that Roy talks about the quick releaseses on the HANS, and then talks about someone forgetting to pull the release pins on the ISSAC).

For people to not be able to use a H&N device that's been proven to work, because it doesn't meet a standard that has requiremtnts that don't relate to performance of the device, certainly makes one wonder why the standard was written that way, or why it was adopted.
[/b]

Bill-

I am a huge supporter of Isaac, but excuse my argument but... HAVING A SINGLE POINT RELEASE IS A SAFETY FEATURE that HANS has figured out. IT IS A GOOD/IMPORTANT FEATURE as it helps a driver get out faster. This is very important, but your question should be is this one feature more important than making it so the driver can attempt to get out in the first place? STOP arguing that HANS only concentrates on the single release exit, it is a lousy argument. The problem you and every other friggen person that argues about this crap needs to figure out is that yes, Hans does this right, BUT their are also other alternatives that can be as safe and most importantly will help when most people get injured/hurt- That is in the accident not getting out of the car. Lets save the people first and just have a requirement that they need to be able to get out in X number of seconds and be done with it.

Raymond "Ok done with my rant... I woke up to early" Blethen